The controversy over AI in publishing and writing has been growing, with many having their own views on whether AI training infringes on copyright, whether it\u2019s OK to post a blog that was written by AI, whether publishing a novel that was written by AI is acceptable, etcetera. As editor-in-chief and publisher at Pelican Book Group, I have always looked ahead to technology, embraced it when I thought it should be and rejected it when I felt it was unnecessary or dangerous.<\/p>\n
As it stands today, I both love AI and am cautious of it. But regardless of my personal feelings towards it (or yours, if I may be so bold to say), it is a technology that will only advance and will not go away. Like all industrial and tech advances that at their infancy were poised to have global application, we cannot shy away from the reality of progress. For instance, my mother told me that when she was a child, her mother didn\u2019t want to get a television because TV was a fad that would never usurp the radio. I\u2019m sure during the dawn of television, many people felt that way. Their feelings didn\u2019t change reality. Telephones, TV, personal computers, cell phones, digital printing, e-readers and e-books\u2026 are all advancements that changed daily living for better or worse depending on one\u2019s viewpoint.<\/p>\n
Whether you embrace AI, fear it, or are indifferent to it, none of these stances will change the unfolding future. The only thing we can do is face it head on and learn to use AI in a productive, non-harmful way. It isn\u2019t the tech that\u2019s necessarily bad, it\u2019s how humans choose to use it.<\/p>\n
So, today, I want to take a look at the acceptable ways for an author to use AI, because there is a major difference between using AI as a tool to help you develop plots, outline characters, edit and promote a book and having the LLM (Large Language Model) write a story and then slapping your name on it as \u201cauthor\u201d (when in reality you didn\u2019t really author anything).<\/p>\n
As authors, we each have a unique voice. Even if AI can somehow mimic that voice, it cannot reproduce it with precision. (which is a blessing, by the way). It cannot \u201cfeel\u201d when a certain word is emotionally more impactful or an ellipsis will evoke the right amount of suspense. When we first start writing, our voice needs to be developed, skill honed. I\u2019ve said on several occasions that in order for authors to effectively break grammar rules, they must first learn how not to break them. It takes skill and effort to learn how and when to introduce a fragment or a one-word paragraph; but more than learning how, one must know why<\/em>. And that takes instinct and understanding\u2014understanding that comes from study (eg. knowing the proper grammar rules) and instinct that comes from human emotion and experience. An LLM might be able to mimic and learn technique; it might even be programmed with the reasons\/whys certain authors used certain literary devices, but AI doesn\u2019t have instinct honed from experience or the emotional understanding to be individually creative, to know from first-hand experience how humans react to different situations. That takes a human, animated with a soul, who can draw from his own perspective and observance. Think of this in Christian terms for a moment: God granted humans free will rather than creating us with an unbreakable set of parameters (even though sometimes it seems as if the world would be a lot more harmonious if we didn\u2019t have the choice to choose evil). He gave us free will (even though sometimes we choose wrongly) because love counts only when it is freely given, not forced. Robots that are programmed can\u2019t love, can\u2019t feel, nor can they have a unique thought. Machines are limited to their programming.<\/p>\n So where does our unique voice fall if we use AI as a ghostwriter for our novel? After all, human ghostwriters exist. What\u2019s the difference? There are several things we need consider. The first being that of true authorship. Even if we take into account that human-to-human ghostwriting is a true profession, we have to acknowledge that the human ghostwriter has his own talent and unique voice which he is lending to the by-line author. In most cases, the by-line author has presented the idea to the ghostwriter, and the ghostwriter is following the demands of the by-line author.<\/p>\n On the contrary, when we prompt AI to write a story, we have no idea what the LLM will produce (even if we\u2019ve given it a skilled prompt). The AI\u2019s voice and \u201ctalent\u201d are nothing more than an algorithm that is dictated by input\u2014yes massive amounts of input including our prompt text, but never actual talent. Unlike a human ghostwriter, with AI, there is never a completely unique output; simply a rearranging and regurgitating of previously received programming. Again, highly sophisticated programming that can quickly deduce and induce uniqueness, but no actual uniqueness. That\u2019s why at present, there is so much repetition in AI output.<\/p>\n Yes, we can edit the AI-generated story, try to \u201cmake it our own\u201d, but in that instance, we are an editor and not an author, because we\u2019ve simply taken a \u201cfrankensteined\u201d output from billions of coded (not unique) input and put our own spin on it. And if that is true, then how, could we sell that product with our name on it as \u201cauthor\u201d?<\/p>\n At this point, you might wander back in thought to hiring a human ghostwriter and it being acceptable to put your own name on that work. This is completely different from using AI. Why? Because there is a direct exchange of services with complete understanding between the human parties. The ghostwriter is expected to create a completely unique (i.e. not plagiarized, nor rehashed) story. As we’ve established, AI cannot output something completely unique. Even it’s skillful responses will repeat words, phrases, sentences; not just for \u201cyou\u201d but for \u201canyone\u201d who asks it for similar output. Would you pay a ghostwriter to sell you the same paragraph he sold to fifteen other by-line authors? Would you want to put your name on that paragraph as \u201cauthor\u201d only to see other \u201cauthors\u201d incorporating the same paragraph in their works?<\/p>\n This limitation and truth about AI highlights current ethical concerns. We’ve already seen controversy and lawsuits where industry professionals have sued AI companies for allegedly training LLMs on copyrighted works without permission\u2014purportedly infringing on intellectual property by repurposing human-authored content. These cases spotlight how AI’s “rearranging and regurgitating” (as opposed to actual creation) might cross legal and moral lines if we’re not careful.<\/p>\n While technically both human ghostwriter and AI LLMs have learned the craft of writing by taking in a lot of input (what human author hasn\u2019t studied books in his genre, taken writing classes, learned grammar rules, etc.), the human author understands when he is reusing the same sentences. The AI doesn\u2019t because all it\u2019s doing is spitting an output that matches the user\u2019s request. This AI repetition and formula is one reason AI detectors work (disclaimer: AI detectors aren\u2019t 100% accurate and some aren\u2019t accurate at all). As technology evolves, legal battles (and hopefully greater understanding without<\/em> legal battles) will undoubtedly inform how we decide what is ethical AI use. One thing is certain: we must ensure AI remains a human aid rather than becoming a replacement for human creativity.<\/p>\n In what capacity is it OK for authors to use AI? While there are myriad and nuanced answers to that question (because, let’s face it, the list of how <\/em>and why <\/em>AI is used cannot be exhausted here), a general \u201crule\u201d (my own self-defined rule) is to ask the question of purpose: What is the purpose of using AI on this project?<\/span> The answer to this question, regardless of how or why one is using AI, should give sufficient insight into whether the AI’s use is acceptable. If the AI\u2019s purpose is to be a tool, then it\u2019s OK.<\/p>\n When AI is used as a tool, a human author is still in complete control of creative output. The human wrote it, the human edited it; the human merely used the AI to help with pre-writing tasks (eg. Outlining, research gathering) or post-writing tasks (eg. grammar check, checking for inconsistencies and a well-wrapped conflict, edit suggestions, promotion of a human-authored work).<\/p>\n To illustrate my point further, I deliberately used AI to help me outline this article. Rather than brainstorming my idea on \u201cpaper\u201d or \u201cpants-ing\u201d the article (which I\u2019ve done, historically) I asked AI to help me write an outline. In no particular order, I explained to the LLM the points I wanted to make and asked it to produce a structured outline for me, which I could use as a guide. Below is the outline. As you can see, this helped organize my thoughts very well. However, every part of the article is mine.<\/p>\n Even though if AI had brainstormed an idea for me, that would have been OK, in this instance, the idea for this article was mine, and the writing is mine. You\u2019ll notice that I consolidated or condensed some of the ideas, and I also completely ignored its \u201cConclusion\u201d suggestion. I did this mainly because the suggested conclusion topic didn\u2019t fit with my true purpose for the post. However, I was impressed with the way in which the LLM organized my ideas without me having to spend extra time doing that. The LLM was a fantastic, time-saving tool.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s the TL;DR version: <\/strong>AI is a tool, not an author. <\/u>Use AI as often as you like, but use it well and always, always use it ethically. <\/em>If you have a well-formed conscience, you’ll know. You know your own motives. If you’re thinking of using AI and you wouldn’t want someone to find out, then maybe think twice about using it in whatever way you’re thinking of using it. (That actually goes for any activity, right? If you can’t own up to it, don’t do it.)<\/p>\n One last thought\/disclaimer: This topic is a hot-button one that will, I’m sure, evolve as the technology evolves. AI is awesome and scary. (Although, I don’t think the Sarah Conners of the world have to worry too much at the moment.) As things change, my thoughts on what is an OK way to use AI might also change. But one thing that will be true no matter how tech evolves: always use it ethically and with keeping well-formed morals intact.<\/p>\n Happy writing, human, I. Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n II. The Value of Human Authorship<\/strong><\/p>\n III. Acceptable Uses of AI in the Writing Process<\/strong><\/p>\n IV. The Line Crossed: AI as the Actual Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n V. Why This Distinction Matters<\/strong><\/p>\n VI. Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n The controversy over AI in publishing and writing has been growing, with many having their own views on whether AI training infringes on copyright, whether it\u2019s OK to post a blog that was written by AI, whether publishing a novel that was written by AI is acceptable, etcetera. As editor-in-chief and publisher at Pelican Book […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5265,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[504],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-editing-writing-advice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5260\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5265"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pelicanbookgroup.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Can We Use AI as a Ghostwriter?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Acceptable Uses of AI in the Writing Process<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\nNicola,
\nPelican Book Group Editor-in-Chief<\/p>\nGuideline Outline for this Post<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n